Terry Butcher Anger Mangement

It's only a picture...

Don't understand why you get so bothered about trivial things on the internet from someone you don't know...

Unless that's just the internet persona you've chosen for yourself...

We'll make a Brit out of you yet...

I don't know - I've certainly changed as far as my persona on the board is concerned - I used to not bother about much now I find I'm hurling abuse at complete strangers which, as you say, is a bit strange - I don't know if it's maybe a kind of release - not really sure. You won't make a Brit out of me - I've stood in that wee cupboard with the huge photie of Her Maj (Apprentices College, Royal Signals - only seventeen months) - I was also into all the loyalist claptrap when I was younger - moved on and won't move back - still always be a Rangers supporter though, although a large number of them would totally disown me due to my political opinions

You don't seem to be the only one on the board who's changed...

But, people change and their opinions change too, such is life...

This is one thing my opinion will never change on tho...

It has nothing to do with football or the military either...

Hmmm....nothing to do with the military, eh? Hmm......just the macroeconomic side of things then, is it? You do realise that no-one in this country ever had a vote to go into "partnership" with England? You do know that there were riots on the streets because of it? "We have catch'd Scotland, and we will bind her fast" Aye, they've done that all right.

TinyHandsOfConcrete wrote:

TheDesertFoxhat wrote:Ah, the old "We pay more than we get back" line...

The percentage figures look good but don't tell the story that the spending is more than the tax collected... We get more than we pay..

that's a pretty bold statement right there, are you only talking about tax revenues or are you talking net contribution to the economy cause if it's the latter every bit of research i've seen published suggests we pay in more in total than we get out - uless you've something that shows different

i liked the default avatar better

a-hem

There's a youtube clip of Paxman interviewing Salmond and a few years ago public spending was £14bn more than was contributed...

As for the rest, that depends on your view on the ownership of the oil...

TheDesertFoxhat wrote:There's a youtube clip of Paxman interviewing Salmond and a few years ago public spending was £14bn more than was contributed...

As for the rest, that depends on your view on the ownership of the oil...

i could provide evidence saying even without oil revenues we could be self-sufficient but it wouldn't change your view because for you it's not an economic argument is it?

TheDesertFoxhat wrote:There's a youtube clip of Paxman interviewing Salmond and a few years ago public spending was £14bn more than was contributed...

As for the rest, that depends on your view on the ownership of the oil...

Do you mean like a few years ago when ...

Britain's public borrowing unexpectedly hit a record £23.3bn in November, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) said on Tuesday.

ONE FUCKING MONTH & we're getting lectures on financial prudence from Unionists.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/8216273/UK-budget-deficit-balloons-to-record-high.html

Interesting wee report on the oil released today...

I can't post links yet but am sure it'll be readily available...

Yet more snp pish rubbished, not that it actually required it...

Anyone with half a brain can see the snp talk a lot but have nothing of substance to back it up with...

Only guesswork, propoganda and blatant lies...

Onshore wind farms support barely 2,000 jobs in Scotland despite Alex Salmond’s claim they are a major source of employment, ministers have admitted.Fergus Ewing, the SNP Energy Minister, published figures showing there are 2,235 posts “connected directly to onshore wind”, less than a fifth of the total for all forms of green power.Mr Salmond last year told MSPs that 18,000 Scots were employed in renewable energy before downgrading that total to 11,000 by requesting the Scottish Parliament written record of proceedings be secretly changed.

The Conservatives last night said the new figure raises further questions about the SNP’s drive for a speedy expansion of wind farms across rural Scotland.The First Minister has claimed his target of generating the equivalent of all Scotland’s electricity from renewable sources by 2020 would lead to the country’s re-industrialisation and thousands of jobs.However, most of the target is expected to be met using thousands of onshore wind turbines as this is by far the most mature of the renewable technologies.John Lamont, Scottish Tory Chief Whip, said: “The rhetoric from the Scottish Government over recent years has given the clear impression that wind farms are worth the visual sacrifice because they are such a major source of employment.“Yet now we learn that far from the misleading 11,000 figure, which includes all renewable sources, there are only 2,000 employed thanks to wind farm developments.

This is deliberate manipulation by the SNP – and they can’t even say where these jobs are.”Mr Lamont received the real jobs total after asking the Scottish Government how many people have jobs “directly connected to wind farm developments”.Mr Ewing replied initially using an oft-quoted estimate by Scottish Renewables, the trade body representing wind farm companies, that there were 11,136 full-time posts in green energy in 2011/12.However, he then admitted that only 18 per cent of these jobs were in onshore wind. But the minister added: “The success of the onshore wind industry has contributed towards the wider success of the renewable energy sector and, in particular, provided a rationale for major grid upgrade projects.”The Scottish Government has claimed offshore wind alone will generate up to 28,000 jobs but critics have claimed the majority of posts will be filled by foreign turbine manufacturers and installation teams.

After realising he had wrongly stated there are 18,000 renewables jobs, Mr Salmond wrote to Holyrood’s administrators last year asking that they change his answer by altering the official report, a written minute of parliament’s proceedings.However, he did not simultaneously follow Scottish Parliament guidance that he publicise the correction by telling the MSP whose question prompted his inaccurate answer and the opposition parties.MSPs only discovered that the jobs total was incorrect and Mr Salmond’s subsequent attempt to alter Holyrood’s records after the error was highlighted by an anti-wind farm campaigner.

EXPERTS have dismissed Alex Salmond’s claim that an independent Scotland will enjoy a new oil boom.A report by the Centre for Public Policy for Regions rejects the First Minister’s argument that Scots will be better off than the rest of the UK if there is a Yes vote in September 2014.Salmond this month said there is “little doubt” Scotland is “moving into a second oil boom”.His officials produced figures suggesting £57billion could be raised in North Sea tax in the five years to 2017-18.

But the Office for Budget Responsibility, who advise the UK Treasury, say UK oil revenue in the period will be £33billion.And the author of the CPPR report, John McLaren, has told the Record Salmond’s claims on oil are “a bit bogus”.He claimed an independent Scotland would need all its oil cash just to afford current public service levels.The report by the Glasgow University think-tank says it is important in the long term for an independent Scotland to balance its budget with onshore taxes.But it adds: “We remain some way from understanding how this might be achieved.”It also claims Scotland’s financial position will be worse than the UK’s by 2017-18.

Labour’s Alistair Darling, of the pro-Union Better Together campaign, said the report was devastating for the SNP, who had “cooked the books on oil”.But Finance Secretary John Swinney stuck to predictions of a boom and insisted Scotland would be better off independent. He said the OBR oil figures were “hugely at variance” with those of the industry.

Wind farms?
You want to abdicate our responsibility to self-govern because of wind farms?

Do you know anyone else who is perhaps beefing up the economic value of "renewable" energy sources?
Like, perhaps, every fucking government in the western world.

No, the point was more bullshit from Salmond that he then tried to cover up...

The whole legal advice on the EU, in front of the cameras, that he claimed and then backtracked on is my personal favourite...

I know lying isn't a new thing in politics but Salmond is usually one of the first to be outspoken about others...

How did this thread go from TB breaking a dug out,too Scottish Independence

If you read it you'll see...

i did..and it still doesn't make sense

I had one of the default avatars, didn't realise that's what they were so asked and then changed mines to what it is now...

gm took exception...

ok ..... seemed to cause a bit of rumpus...don't see anything wrong with it ...i'm for Independence but not gonna get upset about someone who isn't

My avatar was nothing to do with this thread, just got mentioned on here as I think it was the only "active" one at the time...

TheDesertFoxhat wrote:No, the point was more bullshit from Salmond that he then tried to cover up...

The whole legal advice on the EU, in front of the cameras, that he claimed and then backtracked on is my personal favourite...

I know lying isn't a new thing in politics but Salmond is usually one of the first to be outspoken about others...

http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/3_2_1978.pdf




[quote]

1.When a part or parts of the territory of a State separate to form one or more States, whether or
not the predecessor State continues to exist:
(a) any treaty in force at the date of the succession of States in respect of the entire territory of the
predecessor State continues in force in respect of each successor State so formed;

That's one small part of a treaty that contradicts itself several times and also has no relevance to us whatsoever...

TheDesertFoxhat wrote:I had one of the default avatars, didn't realise that's what they were so asked and then changed mines to what it is now...

gm took exception...

Have whatever fucking avatar you like - couldn't care less - your constant talking down of your own country is becoming wearisome so it's unlikely I will debate this with you much further - you're completely obsessed with Salmond as if one person runs the country - he doesn't. Notice you don't seem to have any great issues with the Bullingdon Boys

How is believing that Scotland is better remaining part of the union running down my country..??

Salmond is first minster and leader of the snp, he's also a proven liar on many subjects regarding independence, so is fair game...

You haven't really debated anything, just got the hump, many many times, and accused me of not being patriotic...

So, if what you actually mean is that you have nothing other than anti Scottish insults to throw at me then by all means feell free not to "debate" further...

Your valuable input on the matter will be sorely missed, I'm sure...

I'm tempted to say "Fuck you Foxy" but I'm determined to stop hurling abuse at complete strangers on the board - it's not big and it's not clever..............naw, fuck it - fuck you Foxy - I think you're a plant (and I don't mean of the vegetable kind)

That's correct...

I'm a plant, my mission is to change the minds of several people on a football forum...

I do the same on a small cross stitching forum as well, where I've had far more success but you've outsmarted me and I've been rumbled, well done you...

So, I've to "fuck off" because you don't agree with me...

You're not very friendly towards people who disagree with you...

Excellent points, well made...